The Minnesota example shows, in my opinion, that regardless of the draft process, poor decision and/or bad luck through injuries or players not performing to potential will trump all else. Getting 2 first round draft picks will not ensure teams make it back to the playoffs every 2-3 years but it most certainly would increase the likelihood. Picks still have to be made in real time. The current discussion is like buying a stock in hindsight - imagine picking up AAPL today at 1990's prices. Or, back to basketball, picking Boozer in the 2nd round of 2002 knowing what we know today.

As the original article stated, this is pretty much a moot point as this is probably at the bottom of the negotiation priority list.

The discussion has, however, helped me kill day 53 of the lockout!

I guess my point is that teams can go from bottom feeders back to the playoffs in 3 seasons now under the current system but you have to make the right decisions. Oklahoma went from bottom 5 team in the league to a top 5 team in the league in that time frame, and they did it with great drafting and intelligent management. Portland has built successfully through the draft. Chicago capitalized on their two high picks in 2007 and 2008 and walked away with Rose and Noah. It can be done.

I have no sympathy for teams like Golden State who draft miserably and can't break into the playoffs because of it. They wasted two #9 picks on Ike Diogu and Patrick O'Bryant in successive years, and have another potential bust looming in Ekpe Udoh who they used a sixth overall pick on. Plus let's not forget them trading away one of their best players in Jason Richardson straight up for the eighth overall pick in 2007, all so they could waste in on Brandan Wright's corpse. Three seasons later and Wright is probably done in the NBA. Like I said, these teams are getting the opportunities but they're just not making good decisions. In my opinion, they shouldn't be rewarded for this.

This will probably (but no guarantees) be the last I say on this. Its just turned into a longer conversation than I planned on having but:

Teams would not be using their top draft picks to draft another PG if they have Paul or Wall

are you sure? There are just as many teams/GMs who will always take the best player available over drafting for need. Its a big assumption to think teams will consistently draft for need. (and honestly I think thats probably the biggest draft day fau paux there is). Regardless those were just examples and the point was that if all the prospects end up on a few teams, they will just be competing with each other for minutes instead of competing with vets for minutes. Either way there is no guarantee said player(s) will get the minutes the 'need'.

All the more highly touted prospects would be on lottery teams

they already are. This would just prevent the 'good' teams from making good or smart decisions with their picks (or atleast make it harder for them to do so by making their first available pick worse) and making it more affordable for the 'bad' teams to make poor decisions.

(Phoenix) who did not want guaranteed contracts of rookie contracts

but thats a function of economics (Sarver trying to use team profits to pay for his losing investments elsewhere) and the cap system (having limited funds/taxes etc), not because a team just didn't feel like having a player or because they felt the players weren't worth paying. Regardless one example of a team not using their late first round pick does not mean teams do not want or do not try to use those picks to improve their team.

Your previous paragraph and example says different. Look at Jordan Crawford with Atlanta compared to Washington. Look at Darren Collison when Paul was injured last year. All players learn differently but there is no other learning experience like actual playing time.

They don't say different. That was just a referrence to your statement that players would just waste on the bench on a good team. For some players being on a 'good' team is better for them.

And actually Collison is a great example of what I was getting at. He played fantastic in NO even if it was in limited and injury minutes. But he still got playing time in NO because he proved he deserved it. When an opportunity came up he made use of it and (more or less) forced NOH to either make use of him as a player or as an asset, and in the end he earned himself a starting job. One could argue Crawford showed enough potential for Washington to want him on their team. Players who are good enough will always get an opportunity. Some one will want them. The problem with players not 'turning out' is never a function of them not getting a chance, its them not being good enough.

This is stemming from watching teams stuck in the lottery year in and year out

fine if you say so, but is the reason they are stuck in the lottery year in and year out because they didn't have enough picks? Or was it because they choose players poorly, made poor decisions along the way and/or lost their quality players? I can't think of one team that has been bad "year in and year out" that hasn't had a crap load of lottery picks. Thats not the draft systems fault, thats the teams fault (and on occasion simple bad luck).

The 76ers and Pacers are built for mediocrity. The only hope they have of getting better is if a franchise player falls in to their lap in the middle of the first round which is possible but highly unlikely.

I see no reason to think that the 76ers or Pacers have shown an unwillingness to build a contender. They have each done it in the past decade or so already... and both have a good NBA history. Both have shown a willingness to spend and have made sound decisions. They weren't ready to yet be playoff teams, BUT were (as I said before) the best of the worst. They are where they are by a function of everyone around them getting worse, not them getting better. This new system will now punish them (even more) for not being bad enough. The solution then? Intentionally tank to make sure you don't make the playoffs? Blow it up and start over? Yet Indiana has a young team. Philly has a young team. But now they would have to start all over because they were too good (and I use that term loosely) to quick? They are nothing like Charlotte in structure, but would end up with Charlotte's results regardless.

Ask a Kings fan or a Warriors fan

why? did they not get a fair opportunity to draft? Was their problem they needed more first round picks and yet OKC, Portland, Chicago, Utah didn't? Do Kings fans or warriors fans complain about the draft process or do they complain about what their organization did along the way? Did the league force the Kings to draft Jason Thompson instead of McGee, Ibaka, Batum or Hibbert? Did the league force GSW to draft Udoh over Greg Monroe, Paul George or Ed Davis? (in fairness to Udoh it is just a rookie season) Were they forced to take O'Bryant instead of Rondo, Milsap or even Sefolosha?

We need to get beyond this idea there is a problem with the draft system. That somehow it isn't fair enough to teams who already get the best opportunity. Yes sometimes teams get unlucky with their timing or an injury. This system still won't change luck. Yes sometimes teams consistently make bad choices. This new system won't change that either. What this will do however is take away an already limited opportunity from a team that has made good use of their resources to become successful and give that to a team that already has a better opportunity to draft a better player but hasn't made good use of their resources.

A new draft system won't create parity because the cause of disparity is NOT due to the draft. What it will do is create an even bigger division between the very good and very bad teams every year (although the change over will be quicker) No one will want to be stuck in the middle because thats where you get punished the most. Yet the more teams in the middle the greater the parity is.

There are more than a few things that need to be done to change the NBA, whether its for fairness, equal opportunity, parity, whatever. But the draft is not one of them. It is an already fair and equitable system.

I guess my point is that teams can go from bottom feeders back to the playoffs in 3 seasons now under the current system but you have to make the right decisions. Oklahoma went from bottom 5 team in the league to a top 5 team in the league in that time frame, and they did it with great drafting and intelligent management. Portland has built successfully through the draft. Chicago capitalized on their two high picks in 2007 and 2008 and walked away with Rose and Noah. It can be done.

I have no sympathy for teams like Golden State who draft miserably and can't break into the playoffs because of it. They wasted two #9 picks on Ike Diogu and Patrick O'Bryant in successive years, and have another potential bust looming in Ekpe Udoh who they used a sixth overall pick on. Plus let's not forget them trading away one of their best players in Jason Richardson straight up for the eighth overall pick in 2007, all so they could waste in on Brandan Wright's corpse. Three seasons later and Wright is probably done in the NBA. Like I said, these teams are getting the opportunities but they're just not making good decisions. In my opinion, they shouldn't be rewarded for this.

I recognize the counter arguments and they definitely have merit. Regardless of what is done someone will feel shafted and rightly so.

I don't mean to be anal but just to clarify a couple of points as the examples used in the current system are the exceptions and not the norm (much like Tony Parker as a late 1st round pick or Monta Ellis as a 2nd round pick):

OKC went 5 years between playoff appearances and had a little luck along the way along with very solid management decisions but still needed 5 first round draft picks of #2, #5, #4, #21, and #3 over 3 drafts to get where they are.

POR had the number 1 pick a year after having the number 2 and 6 picks - again a little luck in positioning, not so much luck with the injuries (Roy and Oden) - and had an owner willing to buy draft picks like beers on tap.

CHI missed the playoffs for 6 years after MJ and Co. left town, made 3 years with 47,41,49 wins then missed in 2008 with 33 wins and the 9th seed only to capture #1 overall and Derrick Rose.

1) it could help create a very competitive league (16-18 really good teams versus current 10-12 really good teams),
2) fans of losing teams can have an extra prayer or hope.

Regardless of the draft system, poorly managed teams are not going to be very good regardless of draft system and well managed teams will do well.

Both of these would be very good for the league. If more teams were more competitive then it would be easier to sell out seats to more games. This is also the case with fans of losing teams having an extra prayer or hope. As Raptors fans we can appreciate supporting a young team because we hope that they will improve and grow together to be a strong team. if you double that hope by allowing two picks in the first round then fans will not shy away from their teams as much during those rebuilding years because they're willing to support the young team.

I really like those two points.

All teams should be given the opportunity to stay highly competitive for the long term and that should be a function of good decision making. Changing the draft so that 'worse' teams get better quicker, and better teams get worse quicker

This is a poor assessment in my opinion of what changing the draft would do to NBA teams. There aren't that many big names that have pushed teams over the edge when their drafted in the 2nd half of hte first round. in 2010 the names would be bledsoe and jordan crawford. neither of those teams did anything (before anyone says "landry fields", he was drafted in the 2nd round). 2009 - darren collison,omri casppi, rodrigue beaubois, taj gibson 2008- jj hickson, courtney lee, serge ibaka,nicolas batum, roy hibbert, 2007 - rodney stuckey, nick young, marco belinelli, rudy fernandez, aaron brooks.

before i go any further, we can all agree that there is no one here that really has stood out. all of them have shown sparks of brilliance but none of them have really shown that they are super star material. they may do one or two things good but that's all.

the point is that giving lottery teams two first round picks will not make playoff teams worse faster (unless by that you mean that they lose more games because the league is more competitive, then I would be excited) but the statement itlself is flawed.

All in all I think changing the draft is a good idea. there is no other sport that relies so heavily on having one or two really good players than in basketball. doesn't happen as much in hockey (no one plays near the minutes an all-star basketball player does) and both football and baseball and so team oriented that one player can't change the entire pace of a game. Basketball runs differently and the draft needs to reflect that.

I recognize the counter arguments and they definitely have merit. Regardless of what is done someone will feel shafted and rightly so.

I don't mean to be anal but just to clarify a couple of points as the examples used in the current system are the exceptions and not the norm (much like Tony Parker as a late 1st round pick or Monta Ellis as a 2nd round pick):

OKC went 5 years between playoff appearances and had a little luck along the way along with very solid management decisions but still needed 5 first round draft picks of #2, #5, #4, #21, and #3 over 3 drafts to get where they are.

POR had the number 1 pick a year after having the number 2 and 6 picks - again a little luck in positioning, not so much luck with the injuries (Roy and Oden) - and had an owner willing to buy draft picks like beers on tap.

CHI missed the playoffs for 6 years after MJ and Co. left town, made 3 years with 47,41,49 wins then missed in 2008 with 33 wins and the 9th seed only to capture #1 overall and Derrick Rose.

The reason Chicago didn't make the playoffs for six seasons after MJ left is because they butchered their draft picks during that time. Marcus Fizer fourth overall. Eddy Curry fourth overall. Trading Elton Brand, who was a 20/10 guy in his early 20's, for the number two pick so they could take the crappy version of Tyson Chandler.

They had 10 first rounders in those six years including the #1 overall pick, the #2 pick, the #3 pick , two #4 overall picks, the #6 overall and two #7 overalls. Eight top seven picks in six years! I hate to keep saying the same thing but the system did not let the Bulls down during this time - the front office did. When they started drafting better in 2003-04 (they got Hinrich, Gordon and Deng over two drafts), the outlook of the franchise improved and they made it back to the playoffs. This is not a coincidence.

Portland and OKC (who missed the playoffs for four straight seasons by the way - we were both off by a year) are both examples of teams that took their lumps and dedicated themselves to their youth movements. They put themselves in a position to draft high in multiple drafts consecutively, and then made the right moves when it happened. Once again, I don't think it's a coincidence that they were back in the playoffs relatively shortly after this happened.

The teams associated with long playoff droughts can almost always attribute it to a string of poor personel decisions, especially with the draft.

The reason Chicago didn't make the playoffs for six seasons after MJ left is because they butchered their draft picks during that time. Marcus Fizer fourth overall. Eddy Curry fourth overall. Trading Elton Brand, who was a 20/10 guy in his early 20's, for the number two pick so they could take the crappy version of Tyson Chandler.

They had 10 first rounders in those six years including the #1 overall pick, the #2 pick, the #3 pick , two #4 overall picks, the #6 overall and two #7 overalls. Eight top seven picks in six years! I hate to keep saying the same thing but the system did not let the Bulls down during this time - the front office did. When they started drafting better in 2003-04 (they got Hinrich, Gordon and Deng over two drafts), the outlook of the franchise improved and they made it back to the playoffs. This is not a coincidence.

Portland and OKC (who missed the playoffs for four straight seasons by the way - we were both off by a year) are both examples of teams that took their lumps and dedicated themselves to their youth movements. They put themselves in a position to draft high in multiple drafts consecutively, and then made the right moves when it happened. Once again, I don't think it's a coincidence that they were back in the playoffs relatively shortly after this happened.

The teams associated with long playoff droughts can almost always attribute it to a string of poor personel decisions, especially with the draft.

Depending if you count the season they made the playoffs as a year or not you'd get five. Seattle made an appearance in 2004-2005 then OKC did not make it until 2009-2010 - by my count that is five years but I can see how one could say 4.

My only point with Chicago was they were a first round playoff exit or second round at best those 3 years under Skiles. They are where they are today due to extreme luck in getting Derrick Rose at #1 when they should have picked at 9. Unless a team gets a bonafide franchise player the odds are likely they will not be more than a second round playoff team (Detroit would be the exception to this rule).

Why would you count a season they made the playoffs in a tally of seasons that they didn't make the playoffs? Lol.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of luck in all of this, because it does play a role in every draft and in different ways. Chicago got lucky that they moved up to number one and they were lucky that a franchise player like Rose was available - but they still made the right decision at the end of the day. If you remember in 2008, Beasley and Rose were considered a toss up for the first overall pick and there was a large camp of people who thought the Bulls should have taken Beasley because they already had Hinrich and had a void in the frontcourt. Chicago ended up making the right move and they benefitted greatly from it, which is basically my entire point. If you draft well in the current system, you will be rewarded. There's plenty of examples of this. Same as there are plenty of examples of teams that burn through high picks and stay in the basement.

Why would you count a season they made the playoffs in a tally of seasons that they didn't make the playoffs? Lol.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of luck in all of this, because it does play a role in every draft and in different ways. Chicago got lucky that they moved up to number one and they were lucky that a franchise player like Rose was available - but they still made the right decision at the end of the day. If you remember in 2008, Beasley and Rose were considered a toss up for the first overall pick and there was a large camp of people who thought the Bulls should have taken Beasley because they already had Hinrich and had a void in the frontcourt. Chicago ended up making the right move and they benefitted greatly from it, which is basically my entire point. If you draft well in the current system, you will be rewarded. There's plenty of examples of this. Same as there are plenty of examples of teams that burn through high picks and stay in the basement.

Because April 2005-April 2010 is 5 years - 5 drafts, 5 trade deadlines, and 5 off seasons to tinker with the roster.

Depending if you count the season they made the playoffs as a year or not you'd get five. Seattle made an appearance in 2004-2005 then OKC did not make it until 2009-2010 - by my count that is five years but I can see how one could say 4.

My only point with Chicago was they were a first round playoff exit or second round at best those 3 years under Skiles. They are where they are today due to extreme luck in getting Derrick Rose at #1 when they should have picked at 9. Unless a team gets a bonafide franchise player the odds are likely they will not be more than a second round playoff team (Detroit would be the exception to this rule).

But does giving every bad team a second first round pick really increase the likelihood that they'll get a franchise player? 19 times out of 20, superstars are drafted in the lottery anyway and that portion of the draft remains the same under the new proposed rules.

My main disagreement to this idea is that it removes the option of restocking through the draft as a tool for upper-echelon teams, and is particularly brutal for consistently competitive, small market teams that depend on the draft to stay at a high level. San Antonio is obviously the best example of this: they're one of the best teams in the NBA in terms of drafting, retaining talent, and managing the bottom line. Denver and Portland could arguably also fit into the same class (although both drop into the lottery from time to time). So why would we be the NBA be implementing a draft system that essentially punishes well-run teams?

The draft is in some ways a system to artificially manufacture parity (except that right now in the NBA it does not), but parity should come from allowing all teams an opportunity to become good teams, not from making it near impossible for currently good teams to stay at a high level. I have no problem with a system that allows a team to create a dynasty as long as they're doing it through good management, rather than through market size and appeal. In this way, a meaningful and loophole-free hard cap is where parity in the league should come from, not from redistribution of unproven talent.